Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 449 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - manufacture of winding wires - search conducted in the premises of appellant - demand of duty - denial of CENVAT credit - imposition of penalties - dispute in RUD 22 - requirement of various documents to arrive at the truth - Held that: - no evidence been brought on record to allege clandestinely removal. It is well settled law that following parameters are essentially required to be proved for arriving at a conclusion of alleged clandestine removal: (i) That excess raw material was received, (ii) incidence of actual removal of finished goods, (iii) identification of the alleged buyers of finished goods, (iv) Factum of transportation of raw material as well as finished goods clandestinely, (v) Receipt of sale proceeds through cheque or cash, (vi) Use of excess electricity, (vii) Statements of buyers with some details of illicit manufacture and clearance of finished goods, (viii) Link between the private/internal records with the actual manufacture of the finished goods. None of the above parameters are fulfilled and therefore the impugned order qua demanding duty of ₹ 93,13,644/- is not correct. Denial of credit of ₹ 16,27,231/- on the ground that only invoices have been received in the factory and not the goods have been received - Held that: - To find out truth whether the goods have been accompanied with the invoices or not the statement of the transporter is required but no statement of the transporter has been recorded by the revenue. The allegation of the appellant that the statement of Shri Manjeet Singh obtained under duress is required to be addressed by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order lacks merits. Demand of duty, denial of CENVAT credit and imposition of penalties set aside - matter remanded - appeal allowed.
|